Welcome, and thank you. My understanding, based on what you've told us, is that Noodles gets moved during his incarceration. He goes in to prison in Brooklyn, then before he's released, is transferred to Queens. The reason could be mundane or not, we just don't know.

The fact that the place Noodles enters in the paddy wagon is not the same place Maxie picks him up from years later never bothered me.

Firstly, when we see Noodles in the paddy wagon, I do not believe that is as he was being led away to prison to start his sentence (ie. that would be after a trial or a guilty plea, which would be at least a few weeks after the day he killed Bugsy). I always assumed that that scene o is immediately after he is arrested, and he is being taken into a county jail (ie. as a holding cell). Remember, as we see the gang waving to him, Fat Moe comes running up to join them. This would fit very well with my belief that this scene is supposed to take place upon Noodles's arrest immediately after killing Bugsy, cuz Moe wasn't with the gang during that incident; someone must have informed him Noodles was arrested so he ran there to meet the gang, and reached them just as Noodles was going through the big doors in the paddy wagon. However, if this scene were in fact of Noodles beginning his prison sentence, (say, immediately after a formal sentencing by a judge), why would Moe not have been together with the gang at the sentencing?

Secondly, my understanding is that there are no prisons in New York City, only jails. (I have no idea if things were the same in the 1920's, but I am pretty sure that is the case now).Noodles would have served his 12-year sentence in a state prison, which could not have been in New York City. As I mentioned above, I do not believe that the scene of him in the paddy wagon is to begin his prison sentence, so I am not concerned about that.However, assuming the place Max picks up Noodles in the hearse is indeed supposed to be in NYC, then it can't be outside the prison. So perhaps after Noodles was released from prison, he was transferred for a brief period to a county jail or police station holding cell until he was picked up?

So I believe that when we see the gang waving goodbye to the young Noodles in the paddy wagon, that was immediately upon Noodles's arrest, as he is being led away to the county jail/police station for holding/processing/awaiting trial etc. Then when the adult Max picks up Noodles 12 years later, it is outside a police station or county jail or some other "transfer facility" where he was held briefly upon his release from state prison. Both scenes take place outside different county jails in New York City, and none take place outside the prison where Noodles actually served his sentence.

Generally, I don't like to focus on a film's politics. Whether I agree or disagree with a particular film's political message, I just try to judge the film on its artistic qualities (ie. "Assuming you agreed with the message, is it a good piece of art?") To that extent, it was indeed a pretty good film. The acting was great all around, with particularly wonderful performances by Henry Fonda, John Carradine, and Jane Darwell. Honda was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar; Darwell won the Oscar for Best Actress.

With that said.... It is impossible to avoid politics here. This is a very, very political film (btw though I never read the book, I have seen written in movie reviews that the politics are far more subtle in the movie than in the book).The implication that a) The poor are prevented from prospering because of greedy landowners and corrupt law enforcement; and b) collectivization is the solution to poverty; is absolute nonsense.

Sure, the plight of the Okies was truly heart-rending, and there have always been individuals across all sides of the political spectrum that have been guilty of acting unethically. But the movie was utterly ridiculous. Heck, the Soviet Union had no landowners and lots of collectivized farms; I don't know any Okies that fled there!

The politics in the film are just total bullshit.The free market has been the greatest catalyst for freedom and increased wealth for everyone across all classes of society

Well, I always thought that the police were very much involved the case; that they saw that Max really gets away, that the others get killed and that a fake body is found. But this of course raises a bunch of new questions that lead to the conclusion that Max never (not in the end anyway) actually seriously thought that he was going to rob the bank - the whole robbery was just a way to cause a lot of noise so that Max could change scenery undisrupted. Naturally this scenario would imply that Max very clearly knew how much trouble and pain he was going to cause Noodles - maybe that was even a strong motivation for his act.

Just my speculation.

yeah, when Bailey meets Noodles in 1968 and Noodles says "you're crazy," Bailey responds: "You said that to me once before, a long time ago. But my mind was never as clear as it was at that moment. I took away your whole life from you; I've been living in your place. I took everything. I took your money; I took your girl; all I left for you was 35 years of grief over having killed me."

So obviously this was something that Max had been planning.

There are plenty of possible scenarios for exactly how Max worked it out. I hope this is clarified in the new release (although perhaps Leone wanted this to be ambiguous)? Since we know many scenes of this film were shot but never released, I guess we can't know for sure which scenes Leone intended to explain and which he wanted to intentionally leave ambiguous...

Hope this helps.Noodles and the gang are holding Max back. He is ambitious and wants to pursue career opportunities out West. He needs the gang's money and doesn't want to leave any loose ends. In one of the deleted scenes Carol tells Noodles that he doesn't give a sh** about Patsy and Cockeye but he didn't want Noodles to die.Max owns a funeral business. Getting hold of a suitable corpse wouldn't be a problem for him.Yes - Max duped her and Noodles

SCENE 140 REST HOME: CAROL'S ROOM (1968) Interior. Late Afternoon.

NOODLES enters. The NURSE closes the door from outside.

CAROL is sitting in a chair, her eyes closed, breathing slowly and deeply, relaxed, at peace with herself.

Coming towards her, NOODLES notices an empty hypo and a hemostat on a nearby table. Without opening her eyes, CAROL goes on talking again as if in a trance.

CAROLDo you still wake up sick over having killed Max? You still on that guilt trip? Huh, Noodles?...You know why I kept wishing I'd see you again?

She opens her eyes and turns to look him full in the face.

To tell you he was better off dead. He had the syph. It had started to eat his brain little by little. If he wasn't already crazy, he soon woulda been.

Thanks much. The part about Max getting a "body double" for himself is quite interesting. Everything you are saying seems right, though I wonder if this will be clarified on the restored version. I can't friggin' wait to see it!!!!

Every time I watch this film, a new part of the plot bothers me. I just finished it again, and here is what I cannot figure out:

When Noodles visits Carol in the rest home, she tells him that on that fateful night, Max started shooting at the cops cuz he wanted to get himself killed, cuz he was afraid of winding up in a nut house like his father. (And in some of the extra scenes, I believe Carol also says that Max had syphilis).

However, once we find out at the end that Max is still alive, it is never explained why he indeed started shooting that night? Some may say that he intentionally faked his own death so that he could run away and build a new life under a different identity, but I do not agree with that; there is no way that Max could have anticipated that by starting the shooting, there would be someone with a similar-looking body to him that would be burned up and people would think it was him and he would be able to get away (Sure, once that did happen, Max took the opportunity to run away and build a new identity, etc.) However, Carol was obviously wrong in her belief that Max was trying to kill himself that night, so I am wondering if anyone can answer me: now that we realize Carol was wrong about Max trying to get himself killed, why did Max start the shooting that night?

(Here is the only answer I can think of: Carol was right that Max indeed started the shooting cuz he wanted to die; however, once he realized he could get away and they'd misidentify his body, he figured that was even better than committing suicide: to get away and change identities. So Carol was correct in her belief about Max intending to die that night, but she was wrong about the final result...? Or perhaps Carol was wrong about the entire thing; Max was really never suicidal and did not really start the shooting that night... but that doesn't seem likely).... I'd appreciate if anyone would clear this up for me.

You know, it came to me while reading your post, perhaps the most important/imperative question you/we could have asked him was whether or not he was familiar with this web board an would he consider posting here.

doesn't the newspaper that offers the bounty say "Sean Mallory"? His name is Sean; he said "John" to Juan cuz he realized Juan never heard of tha name Sean before. I always viewed this as pretty straightforward, and I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with Sean's friend in the flashbacks